A reader writes:
I’ve been struggling with a question regarding prayer for some time now, and I’m not having much luck finding an answer. The qestion is this: what exactly are we praying for when we pray for someone else’s conversion & salvation – i.e., what exactly are we asking God to do?
The difficulty I’m having with this question stems from the following:
a) God will give sufficient grace to each person to enable him to get to heaven; and
b) God will not infringe on man’s free will and force him to accept the graces He offers.Given the foregoing, it would seem (to me) to be illogical to pray for someone else’s conversion and salvation. Yet, we see St. Paul praying for the salvation of others in Rom 10:1.
Any help you can give me (or source to which you can point me) on this would be very much appreciated.
Several different resolutions to the dilemma you pose suggest themselves:
1) The Efficacious Grace solution:
According to the Thomistic point of view, while God gives sufficient grace to all for salvation, for a person to actually turn to God and be saved the person must be given a special kind of grace that is by its nature efficacious. Those who get this efficacious grace are saved, those who don’t, aren’t. The bestowal of efficacious grace is entirely a matter of God’s choice, and it accomplishes its goal of bringing a person to salvation without violating his free will.
A Thomistic solution to the dilemma thus might say that what we are doing in praying for someone’s salvation what we are asking God to do is to give that person efficacious grace–thus going beyond the sufficient grace he gives to all while (on the Thomistic understanding) not violating his free will.
Whether this solution works is dependent on whether it is possible to give someone a grace that intrinsically (by its nature) brings a person to salvation without violating free will. Non-Thomsits commonly dispute that this is possible.
2) The Middle Knowledge solution
Middle knowledge is a somewhat tricky concept (MORE HERE), but the basic idea is that God knows the truth of things that are not determined either by necessity or his own agency. Thus he knows what our free will decisions will be in all situations, including those we haven’t been put in. (The latter is a class known technically as free will counterfactuals).
If it’s true that God knows what we will freely choose to do in all possible situations then it would be possible for him to put us in the situation where we freely choose to act on the sufficient grace he has given us and thus achieve salvation.
On this account, what he would be doing in asking God to save someone would be asking him to put that person in a situation in which he knows that the person will freely choose to respond to sufficient grace.
There are at least two possible difficulties for this view. First, in order to engineer the situation in which person X freely chooses to respond to the offer of salvation, God might have to override the free will of other people–either on matters connected with salvation or with respect to neutral matters (e.g., causing me to choose to share the gospel with the person or causing me to choose to stay at a bus station long enough to meet the person and choose to share the gospel with him).
Or maybe he wouldn’t. He might be able to manipulate non-volitional nature such that he sets up a cascade of free will decisions among different people leading a particular individual to choose salvation, not violating the free will of anyone in the cascade. Since we don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality, we don’t know whether this would be a real difficulty for God or not.
Second, whether God has middle knowledge is disputed, the chief part of the dispute being whether this kind of knowledge is possible in situations that are not actual.
Note that middle knowledge solutions are commonly appealed to by Molinists, though they are not exclusive to Molinists.
3) The Easier Influence solution
On this theory we would be asking God to give a person more than just sufficient grace but less than the efficacious grace envisioned by Thomists.
While receiving sufficient grace means that a person receives enough grace to embrace salvation, it does not mean that it will be easy for him to do so. One could thus ask God to give him additional graces that influence him by making it easier for him to embrace salvation yet not override his free will.
For example, he might encounter an evangelist capable of giving an extra-clear and winning presentation of the gospel or he might be in a particularly good mood when he hears it or he might be shielded from evil influences while he’s considering the question of whether to embrace the offer of salvation.
It seems to me that, whatever else is the case, God ought to be able to do at least this solution, and thus we have at least one way of making sense of what we’re asking God to do when praying for the salvation of others.
4) The Redundant Prayers solution
It is, of course, possible to pray for things that God is going to do with or without our prayers. Thus I could pray for God to give a particular person sufficient grace to embrace salvation, even though (as an informed, theologically orthodox Catholic) I already know that he’s planning to do that.
This solution is certainly possible, but it raises the question of whether it’s a good use of our time to pray for things God is determined to do independent of our prayers and why God would set the example for us in Scripture of praying for the salvation of others. Why would he want us to pray redundantly?
5) The Extra Chance solution
It is Church teaching that God gives sufficient grace to a person at some point during his life, but it is not Church teaching that he does this on more than one occasion. We don’t know whether a person has sufficient grace for salvation at every point in his life or only at some points. (It is common teaching that the baptized who are in mortal sin always will always be given sufficient grace to repent before the end of their lives, but that teaching does not apply to the unbaptized.)
If somone has already had–and missed–whatever receptions of sufficient grace God would otherwise give him then praying for the person’s salvation might be construed as asking God to give him sufficient grace once more or even many more times–in other words, giving him extra chances.
6) The Whatever Possible solution
The above solutions represent theoretical answers to the question of what one might mean when asking God to grant salvation to someone. This solution is different: It represents something I suspect is more like what most people actually do mean in asking this.
Most people don’t have in mind the theoretical answers provided in the preceding solutions. They haven thought through the mechanics of how God giving salvation works in that kind of detail, they just want the person they’re praying for to be saved. So in praying for the person they would like God to do whatever is possible to help that person to be saved.
On this understanding, you don’t have to know which options are possible. There just has to be something that’s possible, and I suspect that at least some of the above explanations fall into that category (and probably others that my tiny human intellect isn’t even capable of comprehending). We can thus leave up to God what, in particular, is possible and just humbly request that he do it.
That’s how I tend to think of it when I pray for others.
He might be able to manipulate non-volitional nature
Considering the time of night, I might be misinterpreting to some degree, but might God not also at times act directly on our volition, on free will, at least for people open to it? When someone tells me about a time they felt compelled to do something, and in doing so meets with remarkably fruitful results, it strikes me as a fairly literal example of cooperating with God’s grace. Not that we should always expect to see, from our perspective, the results God would have been intending.
but it is not Church teaching that he does this on more than one occasion.
When you say “it is not Church teaching”, do you mean that the Church teaches something contrary to this, or that the Church has not weighed in on the matter yet?
Maybe it’s just me, but a caller posed this exact same question to Father Mitch Pacwa right at the end of the Wednesday OpenLine show on EWTN. Fr. Mitch only had about half a minute to respond…but here is the link to the show – fast-forward up to about the last 2 minutes and you’ll catch it.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=ol_01242007.rm
Fascinating and interesting posting. All of this hits me rather directly, since I have been praying for quite some time (via the Rosary and other devotions), for the ‘re-version’ back to the Catholic faith and sacraments, of two very close family members. I specifically ask our Lord to give these two people a ‘conversion of heart and mind’, that they would return to the practice of the faith. I intend to keep up this petition for the rest of my life if need be, and beyond if necessary, and God allows. Who knows, perhaps the greatest purpose of my life when viewed in retrospect, will have been the prayers offered for the salvation of others.
I have always thought that such prayers can have many effects, among them the following:
1) Through your prayers, you are offering yourself as an actor of God’s will, a freely chosen act on your part to participate in God’s plan for that person’s salvation. (Consider St. Monica who pursued her wayward son Augustine hither and yon through his wild years, praying for him all the way, and allowing God to work directly through her actions.) When you pray in accord with His will, you open yourself more fully to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, to perhaps do some small thing, freely chose by you, to encourage the person’s path towards conversion.
2) I’ve always thought that God uses our prayers for a person’s salvation to work in myriad small ways to help them resist sin. Since sin permeates the soul, drives us from God, clouds the conscience, and separates us from God, it is the biggest impediment to conversion. Jesus himself taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” For example, a simple distraction of a bird bursting into song just as a sexy lady in skimpy clothes walks by can be enough to avoid the temptation to lust. God can easily give that bird a nudge at the right moment without violating anyone’s free will.
3) Like number one, God can also work through others of His servants, who have offered themselves freely to do His work, guiding them through the Spirit to act on behalf of the person for whom you are praying.
Another solution is to take an active role in the your friend’s conversion: e.g. Send him a book on the life of St. Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa, and/or a year’s subscription to St. Anthony’s Messenger.
i.e. God might hear your prayer, but your friend will not unless you express it visually.
Don’t take advice from Realist about St. Anthony’s Messenger.
Here’s the scoop from Catholic Culture:
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=163
St. Anthony Messenger magazine has through the years consistently undermined the authentic teachings of the Church.
I was a person who was being prayed for before I became Catholic…I was a pagan, and my husband had just become Catholic and was praying for me. We had discussions/debates everyday about whether or not God existed. His prayers led me to listen to his words when we debated, instead of my usual thinking up my rebuttal while he spoke. I think his prayers also allowed him to know how to speak to me, because he challenged me one day to pray for a week and ask God to show Himself to me. I accepted his challenge and was literally awakened in a moment while watching a movie about Joan D’Arc. I have been a Catholic ever since.
Good commentary, Joy!
I especially like the ‘bird nudge’ of no.2. I have experienced these kinds of miracles on countless occasions and am pretty much mystified by them. The littlest things…. like a telephone ring waking me up in time to remember an essential dental appointment,and no one was on the line. And moreover, if I missed that appointment I wouldn’t have been able to keep a scheduled airplane flight for some important work I had scheduled! St. Augustine also discusses this type of thing in his “Confessions”.
I see prayer as ‘potential’ for otherwise EXTREMELY LIMITED and weak creatures..ie.. US! WE need to think of what we are…and that really isn’t very much! We live very short lives, can generally affect very few lives of others, have our own difficulties a plenty, just to stay spiritual and sound, and yet.. WANT TO CONVERT THE WORLD!! It’s almost funny! It IS funny!!
Yet, even though we know our limitations, we can still hope to do some good. We can, of course, do good to all those around us, as Realist mentions…practical things. But then, when we have reached our limit, and can’t see how to do more…we can remember that Jesus told us to ask His Father to send “..shepherds into the fields”. Yes, we can do this! We can ask the Almighty to do things for us…for HIM. Make O Lord “Thy Kingdom Come”, for Your sake! And also for ours…that others may enjoy your goodness and grace! You who are All Powerful and want us to ask You, You can do good for this sorrowful world of ours. You can change it…inspire it! Send Saints into your feilds, Oh Lord! Save ALL MEN, Oh Lord! By your eternal power you can do everything. Help us O Eternal and all Good Lord!
And Jesus said “would you give a scorpion to your child if he asked you for an egg? ..How much more will your Heavenly Father hear you…you men of little faith!”
I especially find it efficacious to pray for the conversion of someone to the Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
And let’s not forget that powerful wonder worker Saint Jude Thadddeus!
Sorry, “shepherds”, above, should be “laborers”.
..but best if those ‘laborers’ be indeed.. ‘shepherds’.
Esau,
Hmmm, I see you have “Googled” St. Anthony’s Messenger. Just because they give some op-ed’s should not prevent one from reading the magazine. Even you read op-eds.
And who operates http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=163?
Apparently it is run by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, President of Trinity Communications.
“Googling Dr. Mirus” will resulted in some interesting comments.
“PetersNet is the invention of Jeffrey Mirus. It is a Catholic Internet site which makes personal evaluations of other Catholic Internet sites. The “evaluation,”of course, is based on what Mirus personally understands Catholicism to be, and thus he makes his judgments accordingly. Thus, the “evaluation” is only as good as Mirus’ views of Catholicism, but unfortunately, the site nowhere makes such a disclaimer, rather, it touts itself as the definitive and authoritative judgment about all Catholic apostolates.
Accordingly, PetersNet cites no ecclesiastical authority by which it forms its judgments of other Catholic sites. It has been given no canonical jurisdiction by the bishop of the diocese Mirus is a parishoner, nor does it cite any other Catholic prelate (pope, cardinal, archbishop, etc) as giving PetersNet a mandate to judge other apostolates. Hence, PetersNet is on the same level as Catholic Apologetics International it “evaluates.”
It is merely a lay organization with an opinion.”
Hmm. Or maybe inspiration in the usual sense, which sounds more like what y’all’re kinda suggesting. I knew getting some sleep would put me back on the lucid path, but no, I had to try to leave the first comment….
LOL…excellent post !
Christine
TheWorld…IMHO
I can think of two (more) possible alternative answers to this question about prayer.
1) We are asking God to save the person we know, over and above other possible results. To take an overly-simplified example I once heard to illustrate the point. Person A tells God, “If you make it rain tomorrow, I’ll become Christian.” Person B lives in the apartment above Person A and tells God, “If you make it not rain tomorrow, I’ll become Christian.” Person C is praying for Person A to convert, but no one is praying for Person B. God accordingly makes it rain. This explanation seems to me to put limits on God that I’m not sure are there, but it’s something to think about.
2) Our prayers do have an effect, but that effect is not on God’s actions. This view says that God will automatically, out of his great love, do everything possible to save everyone. Although our prayers are phrased in such a way as to ask God for something, their effect is on a non-divine spiritual level. When we offer up our suffering for others, we trust that we accomplish some good. Part of this good is understood to be a growing holiness in ourselves, but beyond that we also believe (or I do, anyhow) that offering up suffering for a cause helps that cause in some mysterious way. We don’t know exactly how or why, because it involves connections between people that can’t be traced by seeing or hearing. I think prayers for someone’s conversion work on this level as well, changing the spiritual atmosphere around both the prayer and the one prayed for.
It is hard for me to have faith in this type of prayer. Though I myself am a convert, no one I pray for ever converts.
It is not like I keep my faith under wraps, though. I am very openly Catholic and very orthodox.
What am I supposed to think? That God is testing me by sending unrepentant family to the grave? I cannot accept that their damnation will be a source of MY sanctification. That seems wrong to me. What I mean by that is if I my sanctification is dependent on their damnation, then I would rather not be sanctified.
I want with all my heart to be together with these people in Heaven and, as many doubts as I have about my own salvation, I have so little hope they will find their way to the “narrow gate.”
So much darkness and so little light. Everyone is always talking to win but never listening. Nothing I say or do ever seems to matter much and night offers only terrors.
Sorry. Just a little spiritual shell shock. I will be better in the morning…
Esau,
Since your hasty, negative commentary about St. Anthony’s Messenger might result in a loss of jobs at the Messenger, I trust you will send a correction and apology to the readers of this blog.
To reiterate an analysis of the Dr. Mirus whom you cited as a Church expert:
“PetersNet is the invention of Jeffrey Mirus. It is a Catholic Internet site which makes personal evaluations of other Catholic Internet sites. The “evaluation,”of course, is based on what Mirus personally understands Catholicism to be, and thus he makes his judgments accordingly. Thus, the “evaluation” is only as good as Mirus’ views of Catholicism, but unfortunately, the site nowhere makes such a disclaimer, rather, it touts itself as the definitive and authoritative judgment about all Catholic apostolates.
Accordingly, PetersNet cites no ecclesiastical authority by which it forms its judgments of other Catholic sites. It has been given no canonical jurisdiction by the bishop of the diocese Mirus is a parishoner, nor does it cite any other Catholic prelate (pope, cardinal, archbishop, etc) as giving PetersNet a mandate to judge other apostolates. Hence, PetersNet is on the same level as Catholic Apologetics International it “evaluates.”
It is merely a lay organization with an opinion.”
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mirus1.htm
Be very cautious when reading The St.Anthony Messenger.
They have frequently circumvented the Tradition of the Church,and offered non pious advice to moral issues.
The film review section is very secular in its nature and has given positive reviews to morally objectionable films.
Do not read this periodical for Catholic advice.
Adoremus or Latin Mass magazine are two strong substitutes to St.Anthonys Messenger.
St. Anthony of Padua does not approve of this release in his name.
God bless you.
Stubble-
St. Monica prayed for her son, St. Augustine for decades with no visible progress until he converted suddenly and became a Doctor of the Church.
Don’t give up on prayer. You never know how God may be working in ways you don’t see.
I can only suppose that praying for one to convert is equal to Nostrae Aetate teaching us to respect all other faiths, find truth in them and to hold Moslems in “high esteem”.
This clearly contradicts past teachings such as Pius XII teaching us “…God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.” God did not send His only Son into the world to establish a multiple of religions equally meriting salvation. If this were the case, there would have been no need for Christ to die on the cross, for all religions would have been equally pleasing to God.
A doctrine is a revealed truth through God that can NEVER change. God is pure Truth and can never deceive us. Only man and the Devil are capable of deceptive ploys. The doctrine of “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” is not a doctrine of intolerance to the individual, but of intolerance to error. Hence, every person is bound to become a member of the Catholic Church.
B16 again as reported in Zenit along with Kasper made their JPII stump speech about ecumensim which accepts the false notion that the Catholic church is not necessary for salvation. The Church then loses her role as teacher of mankind (“The Roman Church is the Mother and teacher of all the churches.” {Dogma of Faith} Vatican I). “Go forth and teach” has been transformed into “Go forth and dialogue.”
Clear contradictions, to the Gospels such as Mark 6:7-13 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)
7And he called the twelve; and began to send them two and two, and gave them power over unclean spirits.
8And he commanded them that they should take nothing for the way, but a staff only: no scrip, no bread, nor money in their purse,
9But to be shod with sandals, and that they should not put on two coats.
10And he said to them: Wheresoever you shall enter into an house, there abide till you depart from that place.
11And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you; going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them.
12And going forth they preached that men should do penance:
So we pray for the church again to go and teach as Jesus told his Apostles
And also John, we must remember that the Church of today was certainly no better than the life of the Christ, yesterday. And we see in the life of Our Lord, patience and forgiveness, even for the basest ‘sinners and tax collectors’, some of whom not even sought for such forgiveness. Remember the Adulterous woman? The Samaritan woman? St. Mary Magdelene? St. Peter? The ‘good’ thief?..
We must do our best then and have confidence in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is also the humanity AND divinity of Jesus. We know how merciful he was. So this gives us hope even in the most hopeless circumstances.
It is He himself who tells us to pray and have confidence! It’s best to listen to Him and let Him do the judging. Our job is to work, teach, pray, build up His holy Church and ‘love one another’. After this we ask that the ‘Lord have mercy upon us sinners”.
Stubble,
As Tim said, have patience. It takes time for God to work in people’s hearts. Sometimes a very long time. Don’t give up, but keep hope that your prayers will have effect and your loved ones be saved, no matter how much it may seem like it’s not working.
God is NOT testing you by damning unrepentant family. You would gain nothing by their damnation. However, God is allowing you to experience a trial: your worry over your family. Like all trials, this one offers you the opportunity to advance in holiness. Accept your concern, allow it to motivate you to persistent prayer for your family. Do not give in to despairing thoughts about them, but persevere in hope and trust in God.
John,
I can only suppose that praying for one to convert is equal to Nostrae Aetate teaching us to respect all other faiths, find truth in them and to hold Moslems in “high esteem”.
Ok, I get that you just want to flog your hobby horse here, as the saying goes, but I really can’t see how you make that connection. Praying for someone to convert is the exact opposite of finding truth in other faiths. Praying for someone to convert is an acknowledgement that it is is important – indeed vital and necessary – for someone’s spiritual life that they come to believe in the One True Faith. Praying for a conversion would hardly be necessary if we thought other faiths were just as good as ours.
Anna,
I suspect John inhales laughing gas on a regular basis. Therefore, he wouldn’t understand plain English.
Dan Hunter,
Please send St. Anthony of Padua’s e-mail address so we can all communicate with him.
And your critique of the St. Anthony’s Messenger is approved by what Catholic Church authority? Or are you merely a lay person with an opinion? Or speaking for a lay organization with an opinion?
From the Messenger’s website: http://catalog.americancatholic.org/About/default.aspx
“We are a Roman Catholic publisher, operating with the specific ecclesiastical approval of the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, Most Rev. Daniel E. Pilarczyk.”
Dan, I believe you. Thanks for the info!
And considering St. Anthony was “the Hammer of the Heretics”, I would probably think that your judgement might be right on this assumption, that “St. Anthony of Padua does not approve of this release in his name”.
If you know how a friend thinks, you can often make such assumptions, and accurately too!
I don’t think one needs official Church authority to judge whether or not a periodical (like St. Anthony’s Messenge) is a good source of Catholic opinion. One simply needs common since and a basic knowledge of the teachings of the Church.
It seems to me that the purpose of a blog such as this is to share advice and opinions on Catholic living. In fact, that is what Mr. Akin does so well everyday. From previous posts, one can (at least I can) see that Esau, and so many others on this blog, has a well-grounded knowledge in true orothodox Catholic teaching and is a wise authority on what is profitable to consult on Catholic advice.
Just my two cents. Back to soaking up the wisdom.
Tim J and Anna,
Thank you for the kind words.
Do you think this is how God feels when He sees me sin?
John,
Coherency!
Stubble –
Don’t know. I do know that no one wants those you love in heaven more than God does. His love for them dwarfs your own.
He would do anything… shed His glory, offer His kingdom to stupid ingrates, die abandoned…
Keep praying for them, and pray for the strength to hand them over to His care. Their stories may not be finished yet!
Realist,
There is something called the Sensum Fidelium,in which the faithful,with a well formed conscience can make objective statements on matters of Catholic faith.
The St Anthony Messenger magazine is didainful of the Tradition of the Church and I know this because Someone sent me a subscription to it once.
Hard to read with its emphasis on social work OVER personal sanctity.
To contact St Anthony,pray the Litany of the Saints, make a Holy Hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament, pray the rosary and accept the traditional teaching of the Church.He will contact God for you.
The Bishop of Cinncinati has not been a friend of traditional Catholicism for some time.
God bless you.
I’ve read St Anthony’s in my dr’s office and have been left open-mouthed at what was published. It was obvious to me that the article was bordering on heresy (some of the writings in one of St. Paul’s letters was written by someone ‘taking dictation’ and that the scribe had written in his own words.
Back to the topic… I return to Bishop Sheen’s quoting of poem of the Hound of Heaven. It’s about how God sends his Grace to you via a hound from heaven who relentlessly chases you. You can run, but the dog will get to wherever you go before you do….
I think his Hound was after me, and that the next step was that an angel was going to drag me by me ear into Church. I was an atheist for 25 years, and at the end, the pull was SO strong, it was almost physical.
Anna
The church for centuries (the Jesuits as Gods marines before they were basically eliminated by the Masons after the French Revolution and now aspire to make news for other unChristian activities) would as missionaries sacrifice their lives to bring the Catholic church to faiths such as in Mexico and South America and face death and convert
If the Spanish had been under the influence of Vatican II we would be taught to “hold the pagan Aztecs and Incas in high esteem” and pray for their conversion instead of bringing Jesus and the Catholic church to them as is being taught to our children in Catholic school today where they are being taught that those that follow these false faiths can be saved even if they deny Jesus which is contrary to the Gospel and contrary to prior churh teachings but totally in line with Vatican II and the churh today
Laughing gas? You can joke all you want and deny the connection but it is a connection that millions have already made and the reason for the empty church pews, corrupt clergy, and faithful as yourself who either are ignorant of church teachings of the past or dont want to ackowledge the clear defection
John,
If the Spanish had been under the influence of Vatican II we would be taught to “hold the pagan Aztecs and Incas in high esteem” and pray for their conversion instead of bringing Jesus and the Catholic church to them as is being taught to our children in Catholic school today where they are being taught that those that follow these false faiths can be saved even if they deny Jesus which is contrary to the Gospel and contrary to prior churh teachings but totally in line with Vatican II and the churh today
I don’t know how praying for someone’s conversion and holding them in high esteem contradicts with bringing Jesus and the Catholic Church to them. Vatican II did not change the fact of “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salas”. It acknowledged that many religions contain degrees of truth, there is nothing untoward about that, it seems obvious, but correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s quite obvious also, and the Holy Father himself has acknowledged the fact, that Vatican II was used as an excuse for many horrible distortions of Catholic teaching, and that we must work to interpret the documents in light of Tradition.
God Bless,
Matt
John,
The church for centuries (the Jesuits as Gods marines before they were basically eliminated by the Masons after the French Revolution and now aspire to make news for other unChristian activities) would as missionaries sacrifice their lives to bring the Catholic church to faiths such as in Mexico and South America and face death and convert
Minus the commentary about the Jesuits and Masons, I do know that Catholic missionaries have for centuries become martyrs for the faith, dying in pursuit of the conversion of pagans. In fact, many are still dying for the faith. (I believe this is especially happening in China).
If the Spanish had been under the influence of Vatican II we would be taught to “hold the pagan Aztecs and Incas in high esteem” and pray for their conversion instead of bringing Jesus and the Catholic church to them as is being taught to our children in Catholic school today
Ah, I see where your line of thought is coming from now. You think that we are being encouraged to pray for people’s conversion INSTEAD of actually trying to convert them. This is not the case here. For one, praying for people’s conversion IS trying to convert them, even if no other actions are taken. Some of the great saints throughout history have said that prayer can be more effective than any direct attempts we take, because God works through the prayers, and his action is so much greater than ours. The other important reason that the sin of relativism is not happening here is that NO ONE has said that it is good enough if we pray for people’s conversion without also taking whatever action we think could be effective in moving a person to be baptized and join the Church.
Surely you think those missionaries who died so that the Incas might be converted also prayed for their conversion? Then the question of how or why these prayers have effect remains a question of interest, without in any way supporting the ecumenical relativism that you condemn.
Laughing gas?
The laughing gas comment was not mine. I thought it was not expressed as charitably as it could have been, although I know the one who wrote it is just frustrated with your continuing condemnations of the Catholic Church as it is today.
Stubblespark, prayers for you and your family.
I can only say that I believe with all my heart that no prayer is ever wasted.
It may not be answered in the expected way, nor at the expected time.
But prayer works. It is more powerful than anything that can be imagined.
God bless all here.
Anna
My apologies if I misunderstood as I firmly believe in prayer and pray for family members who have strayed from the Catholic church as well as other faiths.
I believe firmly in prayer but if you take the time to read Nostre Aetate, Lumen Gentium and The Missionary Activities of the Church” , (3) of the 16 documents from Vatican II, even prayer in many cases has been ommitted for the conversion of the other faiths, let alone trying to “enlighten” these other faiths as witnessed by the Tsunami where the Catholic relief organizations handed out blankets and the Koran to displaced persons in Inonesia and elsewhere, and as evidenced even in Benediction in the prayer (Note the word “Prayer”???) “Consecration of the World to the Sacred Heart of Jesus” where the Jews and Moslems (still wrapped up in the darkness of Islamism) has been deleted from a centuries old prayer to be “Ecumenic”
God bless
John,
Ecumenical means “universal” and is commonly used to stress Christian unity. Words have definitions (like impeccable, remember?) the meaning doesn’t change just because you use it incorrectly.
When discussing Judaism and Islam the correct term is inter-religous dialogue.
Ok and now back to your regularly scheduled rant upon your mighty hobby horse Banter.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Realist,
“And your critique of the St. Anthony’s Messenger is approved by what Catholic Church authority? Or are you merely a lay person with an opinion? Or speaking for a lay organization with an opinion?”
Well, you have become quite the hypocrite. When did you start recognizing that the Catholic Church has authority even though you choose to ignore it?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Okay, Realist, regarding my post:
“Don’t take advice from Realist about St. Anthony’s Messenger.
Here’s the scoop from Catholic Culture:
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=163
St. Anthony Messenger magazine has through the years consistently undermined the authentic teachings of the Church. ”
First off, about your rant:
…Dr. Mirus whom you cited as a Church expert:
Where, exactly, have I stated that I consider Dr. Mirus a Church expert???
Valuing somebody’s opinion is a far cry from what you’ve been spouting.
By the way, let me turn the tables here —
Can you find anything on the Catholic Culture website that’s against the Teachings of the Church??? Unlike St. Anthony’s Messenger where there have been many, not only Dr. Mirus, but others as well who’ve actually found explicit material in St. Anthony’s Messenger that clearly contradict Church Teachings.
http://www.catholicculture.org/
Inocencio
You are totally incorrect in one important aspect-Ecumenism never even had a definition in the Catholic Dictionary until the early 1900’s as it was “invented” by the Protestants who by the way are totally against Ecumenism in any form if you read much into that by the way, and was denounced by each and every Pope until John XXIII
Ecumenism though today, as much of what the council of Vatican II intended (or did not intend as it was left intentionally vague so it could appear as if Tradition was not being compromised) and is now being used by Cardinal Kasper and his group to espouse meetings with every faith and a sellout to appease these false faiths.
He has set up “Eucharistic Hospitality” sessions and meetings with Protestants in which fully consecrated hosts, the body of Christ, is “shared” with other faiths as allowed (which under JPII’s new code of canon law now allows such desecration by the way) and some apologists try to link the council of Florence and the notion that we are to “pray” for our separated bretheren of the East with holding Assissi type of prayer services and the desecration of our holy altar
He has set up “Eucharistic Hospitality” sessions and meetings with Protestants in which fully consecrated hosts, the body of Christ, is “shared” with other faiths as allowed (which under JPII’s new code of canon law now allows such desecration by the way)
John:
Tell me just where is this supposed new code of canon law from JP II that allows what you say???
Have you even read the cover of your missalette that specifically states that the Eucharist CANNOT be shared with our seperated brethren?
Realist:
If you visited the Catholic Culture website at:
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?recnum=163
you would see that Catholic Culture actually provided links featuring examples regarding materials on St. Anthony Messenger (American Catholic Online) that clearly undermine Church Teaching.
Site Review for
American Catholic Online
http://www.AmericanCatholic.org
RATINGS
Fidelity: DANGER!
Resources: Fair
Useability: Excellent
First Evaluated: 10/03/01
Last Updated: 05/23/06
DESCRIPTION
AmericanCatholic.org, home of the online editions of St. Anthony Messenger, Catholic Update, Millennium Monthly, Youth Update, Scripture From Scratch and other Catholic features, is a service of St. Anthony Messenger Press and Franciscan Communications, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
While one can find good material on this attractive site, it must be carefully sifted.
St. Anthony Messenger magazine has through the years consistently undermined the authentic teachings of the Church. This website is a continuation of that process.
STRENGTHS
· Attractive layout (Resources)
· Saint of the Day section (Resources)
· Some good articles which uphold Catholic teaching (Resources)
WEAKNESSES
· Articles undermining the Real Presence (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=445&recnum=163&task=showexample
· Richard Rohr was a regular columnist in the Every Day Catholic section, and is still featured in the archives. (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=448&recnum=163&task=showexample
· Books by Richard Rohr, William H. Shannon, Anthony T. Padovano, Raymond Brown, and Arthur Baranowski (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=447&recnum=163&task=showexample
· Tapes by Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Edwina Gateley, Richard Rohr, Donald Senior, C.P., Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland, Bishop Kenneth E. Untener, and Bill Huebsch (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=568&recnum=163&task=showexample
· Special section featuring the writings of Raymond Brown (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=438&recnum=163&task=showexample
· Promoted the TV series Nothing Sacred (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=569&recnum=163&task=showexample
· Features well-known dissidents (Fidelity)
Example(s):
http://www.catholicculture.org/sites/site_view.cfm?Example=4038&recnum=163&task=showexample
CATEGORIES
Catholicism
Persons > Saints
Culture > Media
MORE INFO
Website Established: 06/01/96
St. Anthony Messenger Press
28 W. Liberty St.
Cincinnati, OH 45210
USA
(513) 241-5615
StAnthony@AmericanCatholic.org
John,
When exactly did I bring up the one important aspect I am totally incorrect on in my post? Or do you just write what you want regardless of what someone’s post actually says?
And there goes the mighty hobby horse Banter right on schedule. Yes, sir you can set your watch by that hobby horse.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
He has set up “Eucharistic Hospitality” sessions and meetings with Protestants in which fully consecrated hosts, the body of Christ, is “shared” with other faiths as allowed (which under JPII’s new code of canon law now allows such desecration by the way)
JOHN (JTNOVA):
“Guidelines for Receiving Communion,”, which can be found on the back of the cover of a missalette, spells out the letter of current (as had been past) Canon Law and states: “It is a consequence of the sad divisions in Christianity that we cannot extend to [non-Catholic Christians] a general invitation to receive Communion. . . . Reception of the Eucharist by Christians not fully united with us would imply a oneness which does not yet exist, and for which we must all pray.”
Here’s a practical alternative that I don’t see discussed much. We know grace cannot be “earned” but we also know that we will be judged on our actions (Matthew 25, Sheep and Goats). So, how exactly does that work? Who knows? Maybe, at the Last Judgement, prayers from others will go in my Plus column and curses against me will go in my Minus column. What’s the greatest commandment? Love God. What’s #2? Love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe there’s an implied “or else” in there…
John,
“Laughing gas?…”
Okay. I apologize for the joke.
“You can joke all you want and deny the connection but it is a connection that millions have already made and the reason for the empty church pews, corrupt clergy….”
So praying for a person’s conversion to the Catholic Church is causing all the evil in the Church today? O-kay.
“…. and faithful as yourself who either are ignorant of church teachings of the past or dont want to ackowledge the clear defection”
What gave you the impression that, of the two of us, *I* am the one who is ignorant of “of church teachings of the past”? If one of us should acknowledge his own defection from the teachings of the true Church, it is YOU, John, who have set yourself up as arbitrary judge of the authority of the pope.
Esau
You cleverly failed to insert the remainder of what is said on the back of the missal, namely the loopholes provided for non Catholics to receive our Lord with the words “Exceptional circumstances” and “permission from the diocesean bishop”. So clever-are you sure you did not write the documents of Vatican II as well??
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 Section 4).
Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 Section 4).
Your such a narrow-minded dolt!
Did you even realize (and I’ve already gone over this with you like a hundred times, it seeems, in the past) that this clause applies to Eastern Orthodox Christians not united with Rome and NOT Protestants!
Your such a narrow-minded dolt!
Scratch that — I must be as well since I inadvertently used your instead of you’re.
At any rate, as I’m no Canon Lawyer, I’d request assistance from anybody more knowledgeable about these matters to clarify on this point.
JOHN:
Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
It would make certain sense (at least, to me anyway but I’m open to correction by somebody actually knowledgeable about the letter of the law on this point here) that this may apply to Eastern Christians who are:
1. not in communion with the Catholic Church
2. who cannot approach their own ministers
JOHN:
Actually, come to think of it, don’t you think Can. 844 §4 would correctly apply to Anglo-Catholics and other such Protestants who are separated from Rome, are not Catholics, but do believe in the Real Presence and have our Sacraments (except, perhaps, for the fact they have an invalid priesthood unlike our Orthodox brethren)?
And if you should think that they do not honor the Sacrament of the Eucharist as we do, I doubt you actually know of any such Anglo-Catholics.
Coincidentally, I had just remembered a Journey Home episode, which made me bring this up.
Esau Esau Esau
Nice try but this has been debated by those much smarter than you and I (Jimmy A possibly you can weigh in as you are a canon law expert from your writings) and this is a main contention of many neo cons like myself who feel the eucharist, the body of Christ, is being used as a tool to bring “unity” to those that are NOT in the communion with the Catholic church, and if I recall my catechism correctly, not only must one be in full communion with the Catholic church, but of course be in a state of sanctifying grace to receive our Lord
Now it is actually, with a wonderful loophole written into canon law by JPII (V2 as well must have been written by lawyers as every time I read through those documents, it is one page seems to be in line with what I was taught, the next line is a huge loophole one could interpret just as you want to depending on what side of the aisle you come from)
Even Cardinal Ratzinger before he was Pope spoke out against this practice publicly which of course JPII ignored
Nice try…
Actually, what I just mentioned in my last post was correct, but I wanted to see your reaction.
Your rant:
…to those that are NOT in the communion with the Catholic church
and
if I recall my catechism correctly, not only must one be in full communion with the Catholic church, but of course be in a state of sanctifying grace to receive our Lord
You’re really a narrow-minded dolt; how about our Eastern Orthodox Brethren who have never been in communion with Rome since 1054??? They have and receive the Holy Eucharist and their sacraments are deemed valid even by Rome. (Canon 844 Section 3, in fact, applies specifically to them)
Also, about being in a state of sanctifying grace, I believe that is what’s meant by “properly disposed”.
Now, why don’t you run off now and go your usual route of spreading lies about the Catholic Church as well as holy people like JP II and Mother Teresa.
I believe you’re more expert in doing those things.
By the way, as I mentioned, there ARE Protestants who believe as we do though they are NOT united with Rome and are NOT Catholic, which Canon 844 Section 4 would certainly apply to.
Anglo-Catholics are an example:
Parishes identified as “Anglo-Catholic” reflect the strong influence of the nineteenth-century Catholic revival in Anglicanism. This revival was inaugurated by a small group of priests at Oxford University, who were distressed by the low esteem in which most members of the Church of England held the Church, the sacraments, and the ordained ministry, about the slipshod way in which the services of the church were conducted, about the laxity with which most members of the church practiced their faith, and about prevalent disregard for the poor and afflicted. Their movement came to be known as the “Oxford Movement”; and because they expressed their views in publications called Tracts for the Times, they came to be called “Tractarians.” The principal tenets of the Oxford Movement were:
· That the Church was not a mere human institution but a divine organism, the Body of Christ in the world.
· That the Church of England was not denomination, founded at the Reformation, but the selfsame branch of the Catholic Church planted by missionaries from Rome and Ireland in the sixth century.
· That Christ’s promise to lead his disciples into all truth was addressed to the whole Church, not to any single branch of it, and that the only authoritative teaching was that which had been accepted throughout the Church before the break between East and West in 1054.
· That although the Church of England, reacting to increasingly extravagant claims about papal authority for which Catholic tradition provided little support, had declared its independence from Rome in the sixteenth century, it had not cut itself off from communion with the Church of Rome, but that schism had occurred only in 1570 when Pope Pius V had excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I.
· That although the sixteenth-century Reformers’ rejection of papal authority had been justifiable, the Reformers’ own teaching could claim no authority except to the extent that it reflected the teaching of the undivided Church.
· That the Book of Common Prayer ought not necessarily to be interpreted as its compilers intended, but according to the tradition of the Catholic Church.
· That the Church of England, unlike the Protestant bodies on the continent, had steadfastly maintained the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, traceable to the first century, and that its bishops derived their authority not from the state but from Christ and his apostles through the laying on of hands in historic succession.
· That this threefold ministry was essential to the very being (distinguished from the mere well-being) of the church
· That the ministry of validly-ordained bishop or priest was essential to the celebration of the Eucharist.
· That the sacraments were effectual means of grace.
· That Baptism bestowed a new birth.
· That Christ was objectively present in the sacrament of his Body and Blood
· That the Eucharist was an act of sacrificial worship offered to God the Father by Christ through the Church, his Body.
Further, what of those Protestants who are confronting the danger of death or when some other grave necessity urges it, as Canon 844 Section 4 deliberately specifies, and do believe in the Holy Eucharist; certainly, at such a time, they should not be refused the Holy Eucharist, provided they cannot approach their ministers, that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed (in a state of sanctifying grace), all of which Canon 844 Section 4 once again specifies.
Clarification:
When I said “…there ARE Protestants who believe as we do”, I meant in terms of the Sacrament.
Esau said:
“Further, what of those Protestants who are confronting the danger of death or when some other grave necessity urges it, as Canon 844 Section 4 deliberately specifies, and do believe in the Holy Eucharist; certainly, at such a time, they should not be refused the Holy Eucharist, provided they cannot approach their ministers, that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed (in a state of sanctifying grace), all of which Canon 844 Section 4 once again specifies”
Do you really think that is how the body of Christ is being used today with the Protestants and other non Catholic faiths, deathbed conversions? No Esau, all it takes if for the Bishop to allow the reception of communion by anyone and everyone, as the Bishop of Washington DC Weurhl just stated in his public announcement that he will NOT use the sacrament as a tool against the likes of fetus murderer’s Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry to name a few and deny them communion.
I have never ever heard a priest start his sermon on who and who can not receive our Lord-because they allow anyone and do not protect or possibly do not believe in transubstantiation, as is being taught by the way in seminaries as we speak as I know secondhand from seminarians I have been in contact with in family, that they should question it!!!
On the other hand, I have attended those SSPX masses with my in laws and always the priest starts off his sermon welcoming all who may be here for the first time at the Traditional Latin Mass, but then goes right into who and who can not receive our Lord. That is true to my heart!
Great Post Jimmy, despite all the comments following your post. The actual meat was very insightful and uplifting for those who have a spouse in this situation and who constantly pray for them. Thanks
I have never ever heard a priest start his sermon on who and who can not receive our Lord-because they allow anyone and do not protect or possibly do not believe in transubstantiation, as is being taught by the way in seminaries as we speak as I know secondhand from seminarians I have been in contact with in family, that they should question it!!!
Please, you’re attributing the personal errors of certain folks (who’ve I already acknowledged in the past as being rogue clergy) to the Catholic Church when, in fact, the Church has made itself clear in these matters as previously expressed in my posts.
And what do you actually know of what is actually taught in seminaries???
You really do not know to whom you are speaking to!
Esau said
“And what do you actually know of what is actually taught in seminaries???
You really do not know to whom you are speaking to!”
Esau-I can tell you from first hand experience what is being taught
Unless you are a priest and teaching in one of the few orthodox seminaries where the future saviors of our church are being reared and taught so they can wait for the current crop of liberals to just go away, then God bless you!
Unless you are a priest and teaching in one of the few orthodox seminaries where the future saviors of our church are being reared and taught so they can wait for the current crop of liberals to just go away, then God bless you!
John:
You really don’t know who I am, so it would be wise not to make any such hasty assumptions. Of course, that would certainly apply to me about you as well ;^)
Put it this way, I wouldn’t have received a papal rosary from His Holiness, John Paul II, way back in the days had such a connection not existed in the first place.
And, for your info, you don’t have to be a priest or teaching at a seminary to know exactly what goes on.
About your comment though:
Esau-I can tell you from first hand experience what is being taught
Curious, just what did you mean by this remark exactly???
Don’t tell me you are (or were) actually a Seminarian or a priest or lay faculty teaching in a seminary (as implied by your latter remark)???